• Make my synthesis and authorship more visible. In the literature-heavy section, references appear in short paragraphs and may not return. I need to go back through those paragraphs and show why I've brought those sources together and what I think they add to my argument. Ben wants to hear more of my voice in the reasoning, rather than more personal stories. He said this could lift the section into “distinction territory” if I get it right.
• Tighten the research approach and methods section. I need to keep enough to explain what I did, but I can cut obvious details like saying I used Google Scholar. I can also say the limitations of the small dataset much more briefly. This is probably where I can save words.
• Add relevant visuals and warmth. I talk about the navigation system in detail, so it makes sense to actually show some of it. A few carefully chosen app, map or process visuals could help. Ben also liked the idea of mixing academic references with some personal or cultural ones to give the report more warmth. He mentioned a travel photo or the Nathan Fielder airport sequence as possibilities, not things I have to include.
• Use the appendix to support primary evidence. Ben said I was using the appendix correctly. It makes sense to include my questionnaire questions, and it would be useful to include the responses behind any participant quotes I use. I don't need to worry about the appendix being long if the material helps support the report.
• Check consent and anonymity before adding responses. He raised participant permission and name preferences, especially as an important issue for future publication. He understood that this MA report has limited readers and that I already got tick-box consent for course use and possible publication. Before adding full responses, I should still check what each person agreed to and whether they want their name used or would rather be anonymous.
• Take a break, then reread on paper. Ben suggested leaving it alone for about a week, then printing it and reading it with fresh eyes. I'll probably spot what I can cut and where I need to make my own thinking clearer.

Key notes — Studio Practice

• The app is the main artifact. After I explained the coded prototype, with smartwatch biosignals, headset guidance, live airport information and alternative prompts when heart rate rises, Ben said to put my time into the app. He advised against adding a campaign, packaging or airport posters just to make more artifacts. He felt those could take attention away from the app.
• Develop the app further where time allows. Improving the map’s interactivity, making the app available for others to try, and testing it were the directions I raised. Ben said those would be much more worthwhile than making a campaign. Getting it onto the App Store would be lovely if possible, but it was my idea, not something he said I had to do.
• Frame the next work as a second design phase. Show the current prototype, then explain the move towards a minimum viable product (MVP): what is working, what is being refined, and what can be tested. Ben thought this would be an interesting next step in the design process.
• Make the Studio Practice opening concise and purposeful. I can start with my research question, one main aim and a few clear design objectives that came out of the Critical Report. That will show why I made the app without repeating the report. Ben and Dan read the Critical Report first, so I don't need to copy whole sections across.
• Confidence in the existing direction. Ben was really positive about the work and the thinking behind it. That gives me confidence to keep developing the app and to show clearly what I've made and learned.

Most important notes

1. Prioritise the app. I should use the time I have left to improve the app, let other people try it if I can, and show how the prototype is moving towards an MVP. I don't need a campaign or packaging just to have more to show.
2. Give the Critical Report a clearer authorial voice. I need to connect the sources and participant quotes through my own thinking, and explain why they matter for the design.
3. Cut and clarify. I can shorten the methods and limitations, take a break, then read a printed copy with fresh eyes. I should add visuals where they help people understand the navigation system or my argument.
4. Make quoted primary evidence traceable and ethical. I'll keep the questions in the appendix and think about adding the responses behind direct quotes, after checking consent and how each person wants to be named.
5. Link the two submissions through objectives. I'll open Studio Practice with my research question, one aim and a few clear objectives from the Critical Report, then show how the app responds to them.

Encouragement

• Ben said he enjoyed reading my report and called it “a good piece of work.” He said his criticisms were things to refine, not big problems with the essay.
• He thought the research and references were strong. His main push was for me to make my own thinking more visible. He even said that doing this well could move the literature section into “distinction territory.” That is encouraging, even though he was careful not to pre-grade the report.
• He confirmed that I was using the appendix correctly. I had worried about it, so this is one thing I can stop second-guessing.
• When I described the app, he said I had “done a really good job.” He felt the app itself was enough to focus on, and called further development and testing “fantastic” and much more worthwhile than making extra campaign materials.
• He said the kind of thinking I am showing through this project is a valuable skill set in the wider design world. That means the hard work of learning to build the app and thinking through how it responds to the research is coming across.
• He said that he could see that effort. I should remember that the feedback was about how to make strong work clearer and take it further - I do not need to start again.